KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2012

Transcription

1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2012 Introduction Overall the 2011 results indicated that some of our KPIs were not fulfilling the requirement initially set out, i.e. to measure performance and show continuous improvement. We have therefore made some changes to some of following KPIs which means that a comparison with previous years is not a valid exercise. Details are set out in each individual KPI. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION The aim is to monitor customer satisfaction by means of a cross selection of customer satisfaction surveys undertaken by each branch and trading operation. Any low scores, negative comments, or falling trends are under investigation by the Directors. Although we changed the criteria for 2012 we feel this didn t go far enough and for 2013 we have completely overhauled the system and surveys will be sent electronically for the majority of our completed contracts. In addition, to this change in procedure, the survey has been revamped to make it more relevant and concise. Our aim is that, not only will be get more, but that they will be more meaningful. However, for 2012 the existing procedure remained in place and the results, with comparisons are as follows: Results Period No of surveys completed Overall average Installation Quality Programme Compliance Problem Handling Safety Value added to Contract Employ Again? Summary This is actually an improving result in both category and numbers of, compared to last year and the overall average is the best achieved to date. However, it is important to note that a number of branches did not manage to get any surveys completed. The branches that did receive some feedback were: Aberdeen (12), Hull (11), Manchester (7), Aperture (6), Hyflex (5), Leeds (2), Liverpool (2), Newcastle (1) KPI Report 1 Issued: July 2013

2 EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION Staff The format of this KPI has changed in line with advice from Investors in People. It is not therefore possible to benchmark 2012 results against previous years. The changes are as follows: The range of marks has been reduced from 1-10, to 1-4. Instead of using the 1-10 scale to mark poor, satisfactory or excellent in varying stages, the 1-4 scale has definite descriptions against each with the worst being a score of 1 and the best being a score of 4. The results for each question have been calculated by counting the number of for each mark and then presenting the total as a percentage of aggregate score. A table of the questions, answers and results for employees is attached as Appendix A and these results are illustrated in the graph below. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% % 0% Overall The amount of input you have over your job The terms and conditions of your employment The sense of achievement you get from your work The respect and feedback you get from those to whom you report. The effectiveness and clarity of from whom you report. The level of management support Summary Overall 86% of employees answered 3 or 4 to most questions with only a minority (2%) selecting option 1. There were no low marks in the sense of achievement you get from your work. Any low scores were discussed with each individual by either HR personnel or by their line manager. This was a good first result and sets a high benchmark for KPI Report 2 Issued: July 2013

3 Operative Satisfaction As with Employee Satisfaction, this has been amended in line with advice from Investors in People. The results are summarised in the graph below, with a table of questions, answers and results attached as Appendix B. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% % 0% Overall The amount of input you have over your job The terms and conditions of your employment The sense of achievement you get from your work The respect and feedback you get from those to whom you report. The effectiveness and clarity of from whom you The level of management support The safety of your work environment and provision of PPE Summary There were quite a few operatives who did not take the opportunity to respond. However, as with employee satisfaction, the results were generally in the top two sectors (overall 86%) and those which fell into the lower segment have been addressed by the relevant manager. What is particularly pleasing is that no operatives marked Safety and PPE as 1 with the majority (91%) marking this at either 3 or 4. Again, this sets a high benchmark for KPI Report 3 Issued: July 2013

4 PROFITABILITY The aim is to show company profit, before interest and tax, as a percentage of sales. Note: There have been some minor adjustments to the 2011 figures. Results & Annual Comparisons Turnover ,009 34,743 32,260 PBIT (395) (364) % 0.61% (1.14%) (1.13) Trend Turnover PBIT Linear (Turnover) Linear (PBIT) Summary Note: 2011 figures have been amended. Although the economic climate in 2012 was tougher than 2011 and 2010, measures we put in place meant we achieved a small profit KPI Report 4 Issued: July 2013

5 PRODUCTIVITY The aim is to show company value added (turnover) per employee, excluding operatives. Results and Annual Comparisons Turnover 34,009 34,743 32,260 Total Cost of Sales (26,943) (27,348) (24,909) Total Overheads 6,859 7,790 7,714 Less Staff Costs (4,840) (5,004) (4,959) (2,019) (2,786) (2,755) Less Bought out Costs Profit 5,047 4,609 4,596 No of Employees Added Value per Employee Total Staff Costs 4,840 5,004 4,959 No of Staff Cost per Employee Profit per Employee 2 (3) (2) Trend Added value per employee Profit per employee Linear (Added value per employee) Linear (Profit per employee) Summary Note: 2011 figures have been slightly amended. A slow increase is being shown with a move into profit, which we view as an achievement in the current economic climate KPI Report 5 Issued: July 2013

6 SUPPLY CHAIN Preferred Supplier Performance Appraisal The aim is to measure the performance of our Preferred Suppliers and the relationship between branch and supplier by undertaking an annual appraisal. This had been done in the same way for a number of years but had stopped being effective due to an over-familiarity with the format and there not being adequate descriptions to facilitate marks from 1 to 10. We decided to keep the essence of the categories to be appraised, but to reduce the to 4 with a detailed description for each possible response. Responders can select one of these options which carry a mark (unseen) from 1 to 4, where 1 is the worst possible answer and 4 is the best. There is an option to comment on each question as well and also to skip the questions if the supplier has not been used. An appraisal was completed for each preferred supplier and then the number of responders for each category s score was aggregated to get an overall quantifiable percentage for each category. The new appraisal was undertaken using a survey platform which ed out a link to each potential responder (all branch managers plus selected branch members of staff and directors depending upon the supplier). The combined results for 2012 are shown graphically below: (The full set of questions, answers and results are attached as Appendix C.) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% % 0% Price Support in Securing Contract Product Quality Delivery & Availability Technical Capability Communication & Attitude Problem Handling Environmental & Ethical Partnership Ethos Overall Summary This proved to be a popular format with all responders completing the appraisal as they could. The results are generally good with the highest percentages being 3 or 4 on the scale. However, there are some which fall into the lower score bracket and these will be addressed over the forthcoming year with the suppliers and branches concerned. The 2012 results have set the benchmark for forthcoming years KPI Report 6 Issued: July 2013

7 Preferred Supplier Feedback The aim is to obtain feedback from our Preferred Suppliers and the relationship between supplier and branch by asking a selection of our Preferred Suppliers to undertake an annual appraisal. A lack of response from some of our suppliers in previous years has been disappointing and to combat this we adopted a similar approach to that of the appraisal, using the same survey platform. Suppliers were asked to mark each branch for each category. A mark of 1 indicated the poorest score with 4 being the best. Details for all categories are attached as Appendix D, including description of each score per category and number of received The results of the survey are shown graphically below. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% % 0% Ability to win work Support to supplier Workmanship Problem handling Management & Competence Payments Communication & Attitude All categories Summary Although we did receive a few more replies than on previous surveys, we did not get the response anticipated, which is disappointing and will need to be addressed for next year. In total, we had 14 surveys returned, but not all responders answered every question. In particular Workmanship was often left blank as suppliers did not feel they could comment on the quality of our work. The only two categories marked with the lowest score of 1 were Ability to Win Work/Market Share and Support to Supplier. It is possible there is a connection which can be investigated to see how these scores might be improved. In general, this is a positive outcome for the first survey and sets the benchmark for forthcoming years KPI Report 7 Issued: July 2013

8 SAFETY Reports and statistics are provided quarterly by Safety Advisers and accident statistics are published annually on the company intranet. Incidents are analysed by branch and by type of incident. In 2012 our incident rate (reportable accidents per 100 employees) was 1.4 In 2011 it was 1.6 In 2010 it was 2.7 Note: 2011 onwards excludes all sub-contractor incidents. Trend Incident Rate Linear (Incident Rate) Summary This is a positive downward trend and sets a challenging benchmark for KPI Report 8 Issued: July 2013

9 ENVIRONMENT As part of our ISO accreditation we have identified our usage of propane gas as something which we can attempt to reduce. The full calculation is attached as Appendix E, but in summary we have taken our quantities of gas purchased and assessed them against turnover in that period (turnover is adjusted to exclude operations which do not use propane gas). 0.90% 0.80% 0.70% 0.60% 0.50% 0.40% % 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Full Year % of propane gas used against applicable turnover Summary One of the difficulties of assessing this usage is that it can be weather dependent as we use more gas in wet weather. We therefore expect higher usage in the wetter/colder months than in the warmer/drier months. However, the weather patterns over the past few years have been unusual. Statistics from the Met Office show that 2012 was the second wettest year on record since Total rainfall for the UK in 2012 was mm against an annual average ( ) of mm. This does not look tremendously higher than average, but the wet weather persisted from April through to December, with April and June both being the wettest on record. This extended wet weather pattern does not facilitate a reduction in gas usage. The Met Office suggests this could become a typical weather pattern in years to come and we therefore have set 2012 as our benchmark for future years KPI Report 9 Issued: July 2013

10 PROCESS EVALUATION Incorporated within our formal Quality Procedures KPI Report 10 Issued: July 2013

11 APPENDIX A : EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION RESULTS The amount of input you have over your job I have very little input over my job I feel capable of having more input over my job I am comfortable with the amount of input I have over my job I am very happy with the amount of input I have over my job Number of Percentage 0% 18% 49% 33% The Terms & Conditions of your employment I am unhappy with the T&C of my employment I feel there is room for improvement I feel they are adequate for my role and contribution I am satisfied with them Number of Percentage 4% 28% 32% 37% My job doesn't provide much opportunity for individual sense of achievement I get a moderate sense of achievement I get a very good sense of achievement The sense of achievement you get from your work I get no sense of achievement Number of Percentage 0% 0% 51% 49% The respect and feedback you get from those to whom you report I do not feel I get the respect and feedback my contribution deserves I feel the respect I receive is appropriate to my position I am happy with the respect I get but receive little feedback I am very happy with the level of respect and feedback I receive Number of Percentage 5% 7% 31% 57% The effectiveness and clarity of from whom you report I feel the clarity of is very poor I feel that the clarity of is inconsistent The effectiveness and clarity of is sufficient 2012 KPI Report 11 Issued: July 2013 The is clear and allows me to carry out my job efficiently Number of Percentage 0% 16% 34% 50%

12 The level of management support I feel I get no support from my manager I get little support from my manager I get support when I ask for it I always get the support I need in order to complete my job well Number of Percentage 2% 2% 52% 45% All categories 1 (lowest) (highest) Number of Percentage 2% 12% 41% 45% 2012 KPI Report 12 Issued: July 2013

13 APPENDIX B : OPERATIVE SATISFACTION The amount of input you have over your job I have very little input over my job I feel capable of having more input over my job I am comfortable with the amount of input I have over my job I am very happy with the amount of input I have over my job Number of Percentage 3% 15% 68% 15% The Terms & Conditions of your employment I am unhappy with the T&C of my employment I feel there is room for improvement I feel they are adequate for my role and contribution I am satisfied with them Number of Percentage 5% 15% 35% 45% The sense of achievement you get from your work I get no sense of achievement My job doesn't provide much opportunity for individual sense of achievement I get a moderate sense of achievement I get a very good sense of achievement Number of Percentage 4% 9% 24% 64% The respect and feedback you get from those to whom you report I do not feel I get the respect and feedback my contribution deserves I feel the respect I receive is appropriate to my position I am happy with the respect I get but receive little feedback I am very happy with the level of respect and feedback I receive Number of Percentage 7% 20% 17% 56% The effectiveness and clarity of from whom you report I feel the clarity of is very poor I feel that the clarity of is inconsistent The effectiveness and clarity of is sufficient The is clear and allows me to carry out my job efficiently Number of Percentage 4% 9% 35% 53% 2012 KPI Report 13 Issued: July 2013

14 The level of management support I feel I get no support from my manager I get little support from my manager I get support when I ask for it I always get the support I need in order to complete my job well Number of Percentage 2% 4% 39% 56% The safety of your work environment and provision of PPE I feel very unsafe and have little provision of PPE I feel fairly safe and have adequate PPE provisions I feel safe within my work environment and have plenty of PPE provisions I feel very safe within my work environment and always have more than enough PPE provisions Number of Percentage 0% 9% 38% 53% All categories 1 (lowest) (highest) Number of Percentage 4% 11% 35% 51% 2012 KPI Report 14 Issued: July 2013

15 APPENDIX C : PREFERRED SUPPLIER APPRAISAL PRICE Prices are not competitive Prices in line with market, but not preferential Prices are lower than market, but non-negotiable Prices are lower than market and negotiatibe Number of Percentage 4% 33% 48% 15% SUPPORT IN SECURING CONTRACT Not helpful or proactive. Tend to favour our cometitors Interested in large, prestige contracts only Will offer solutions when asked Work in partnership to help us win work Number of Percentage 4% 10% 61% 25% PRODUCT QUALITY A number of quality issues which are not resolved satisfactorily A few quality issues which take a long time to resolve. A few quality issues, but they are resolved effectively Very few quality issues, but they are resolved quickly, effectively and with measures put in place to avoid them in the future. Number of Percentage 2% 8% 43% 47% DELIVERY & AVAILABILITY Choice of product not always available. No substitutions offered. Choice of product sometimes unavailable, but substitutions offered. Choice of product usually available and delivered on time Choice of product always available and delivered on time. Number of Percentage 2% 20% 45% 32% TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Very basic knowledge, not expert Reasonable knowledge of own industry sector Good knowledge of own industry sector 2012 KPI Report 15 Issued: July 2013 Excellent knowledge of industry sector. Proactive in finding roofing specific solutions Number of Percentage 2% 28% 38% 32%

16 COMMUNICATION & ATTITUDE Dismissive and unhelpful Variable depending on the person. Generally acceptable, but uninspiring Courteous and helpful. Could be more open Helpful, friendly and pro-active on all levels Number of Percentage 2% 15% 39% 44% PROBLEM HANDLING Negative. Does not respond Slow to respond and not always effectively Responds quickly, but not always effectively Reacts well to problems and works quickly to resolve them, escalating upwards if necessary Number of Percentage 1% 12% 40% 47% ENVIRONMENTAL & ETHICAL Poor, no signs of working towards achieving any form of accreditation or policy Limited knowledge and not proactive in looking for solutins, e.g. recycling of waste Working towards accreditations and with policies in place. Will look at environmental solutions if asked. Accredited to ISO Full CSR policy. Proactive in looking for "green" solutions. Number of Percentage 2% 16% 32% 50% PARTNERSHIP ETHOS We are seen as a nuisance customer - demanding much for little spend We are seen as a category B customer - medium value and importance We are seen as a category A customer, but not a true partner. We are seen as a true partner. Our value to the supplier is high. Number of Percentage 1% 23% 45% 31% OVERALL 1 (LOWEST) (HIGHEST) Number of Percentage 2% 19% 44% 35% 2012 KPI Report 16 Issued: July 2013

17 APPENDIX D: PREFERRED SUPPLIER FEEDBACK ABILITY TO WIN WORK/MARKET SHARE Number of Low profile not overly successful at winning work Medium profile but faces strong competition High profile but not always first choice Market leader - the number one choice Percentage 9% 25% 62% 3% SUPPORT TO SUPPLIER No support or enquiries. A few enquiries, but only when we are specified. Usually your first choice with a few exceptions. We feel we are always your first choice and that you support us in winning the work. Number of Percentage 25% 32% 42% 8% WORKMANSHIP Poor and unacceptable standard. Often below acceptable standard. Generally good with occasional defects. Excellent and defect free. Number of Percentage 0% 0% 28% 14% PROBLEM HANDLING Uncooperative and aggressive. Indifferent - not proactive in helping resolve any problems. Reasonably helpful and cooperative. Pro-active and supportive. Number of Percentage 0% 2% 41% 30% MANAGEMENT & COMPETENCE Incompetent and unprofessional. Generally not in control. Good, with some weaknesses Completely focussed and in control. Number of Percentage 0% 0% 52% 24% 2012 KPI Report 17 Issued: July 2013

18 PAYMENTS Always pay very late, not proactive in resolving disputed invoices. Usually pay late by a few days, very slow to resolve disputes. Occasionally pay late by a few days, disputed invoices are resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Always pay to terms with fast and proactive resolution of disputes. Number of Percentage 0% 1% 11% 63% COMMUNICATION & ATTITUDE Negative and uncommunicativ e. Only a few personnel are interested. Most personnel willing and cooperative. All personnel willing and cooperative. We feel a true relationship exists between our companies. Number of Percentage 0% 10% 43% 35% ALL CATEGORIES Mark 1 (lowest) Mark 2 Mark 3 Mark 4 (highest) Number of Percentage 6% 13% 50% 32% 2012 KPI Report 18 Issued: July 2013

19 APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL PROPANE GAS - CALCULATION Q Q Q Q4 Total Via Calor 21,618 14,759 27,409 28,304 92,090 Via SIGRS 4,379 1,596 2,754 2,751 11,480 25,997 16,355 30,163 31, , Q Q Q Q4 Total Turnover 7,107,000 7,572,000 10,107,000 9,957,000 34,743,000 Hyflex/Aperture T/o 1,302,000 1,141,000 1,231,000 1,413,000 5,087,000 T/O exc Hyflex/Aperture (adjusted) 5,805,000 6,431,000 8,876,000 8,544,000 29,656,000 % usage on total turnover 0.37% 0.22% 0.30% 0.31% 0.30% % usage on adjusted turnover 0.45% 0.25% 0.34% 0.36% 0.35% 2011 Q Q Q Q4 Total Propane Gas purchased (kg) 25,997 16,355 30,163 30, ,570 % usage of propane gas against Adjusted Turnover 0.45% 0.25% 0.34% 0.36% 0.35% PROPANE GAS - CALCULATION Q Q Q Q4 Total Via Calor 24,548 20,677 22,893 31,509 99,627 Via SIGRS 3,134 4,431 7,565 27,682 25,108 22,893 31, , Q Q Q Q4 Total Turnover 8,526,000 7,890,000 8,825,000 8,768,000 34,009,000 Hyflex/Aperture T/o 1,140,000 1,047,000 3,433,000 4,695,000 10,315,000 T/O exc Hyflex/Aperture (adjusted) 7,386,000 6,843,000 5,392,000 4,073,000 23,694,000 % usage on total turnover 0.32% 0.32% 0.26% 0.36% 0.32% % usage on adjusted turnover 0.37% 0.37% 0.42% 0.77% 0.45% 2012 Q Q Q Q4 Propane Gas purchased (kg) 27,682 25,108 22,893 31, ,192 % usage of propane gas against Adjusted Turnover 0.37% 0.37% 0.42% 0.77% 0.45% 2012 KPI Report 19 Issued: July 2013